Whether the grounds for which a decision to grant immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive are based on the executory exemplification of executive titles with respect to the obligation exempted, and whether the legitimate grounds for appeal against the seizure and collection order of the obligation requested and issued after such confirmation becomes final and conclusive (negative)

An immediate appeal against the seizure and collection order, such as the existence of executory exemplification, delivery thereof, existence of requirements for the commencement of execution, and existence of grounds for obstruction of execution, can only be made on the ground of defects in the matters to be observed after investigation by the execution court when issuing a seizure and collection order, and any substantive reasons such as the extinguishment, etc. of enforcement bonds, do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal against such defects. However, even if the immunity decision under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive, and the obligor’s obligation is exempted, it does not automatically lose the validity of enforcement title as to the discharged obligation. However, even if the obligor’s obligation is exempted as a matter of course, it is merely an substantive reason to exclude the executory power of enforcement title through a lawsuit by objection to the claim, and on the other hand, the confirmation of the immunity decision does not obstruct the execution of compulsory execution commenced only after the executory power over the discharged obligation becomes final and conclusive based on the executory power over the obligation, and thus, the exemption of the obligor’s obligation is not a legitimate ground for appeal against the seizure and collection order.

Articles 227(4) and 229(6) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Seoul Mutual Savings Bank

The debtor

Suwon District Court Order 2013Ra1284 dated July 25, 2013

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. An immediate appeal against the seizure and collection order can only be filed on the ground of defects in the matters to be observed by the executing court when issuing a seizure and collection order, such as the existence of executory exemplification, whether it is served, whether the requirements for commencement of execution are satisfied, and whether there exists a cause for obstruction to execution, etc.

However, even if a decision to grant immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive, and the obligor’s obligation is exempted, this does not necessarily mean that the effect of enforcement title with respect to the exempted obligation naturally loses its enforcement title. However, it is merely an substantive reason to exclude enforcement power through a lawsuit of demurrer, and on the other hand, the confirmation of immunity does not constitute an obstacle to enforcement of compulsory execution commenced only after it becomes final and conclusive based on the executory power of enforcement with respect to the exempted obligation.

Therefore, it is not a legitimate reason for appeal against the seizure and collection order of the claim filed and issued after the confirmation of the executory power over the exempted obligation, for which the immunity decision under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive, and the obligor’s obligation is exempted from the obligation to repay the obligor’s obligation.

2. On June 26, 2013, the lower court issued a seizure and collection order of the claim against the debtor on June 26, 2013, with the executory order of the Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea69109 against the debtor, and applied for a seizure and collection order of the claim against the debtor against the third debtor. On June 27, 2013, the judicial assistant of the first instance court issued a seizure and collection order of the claim (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order of the claim”), and the first instance court issued the above order upon the debtor’s filing an immediate appeal, and it is difficult to view the debtor as being exempted from the above disposition on July 16, 2013, the lower court rejected the execution order of the case on the ground that the debtor was declared bankrupt and thus exempted from the execution order of the above case on the ground that it is difficult to view that the debtor was exempt from the execution order of the above case on the ground that the debtor was declared bankrupt and exempted from the execution order of the above case.

3. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the obligor was exempted from the liability for the enforcement claim of this case due to the determination of the above immunity decision, this does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal against the seizure and collection order of this case filed only after the executory order of the execution claim of this case became final and conclusive based on the executory order of the execution claim of this case. However, the court below revoked the first instance court's appeal and dismissed the application for the seizure and collection order of this case. Such judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of grounds for appeal against the seizure and collection order of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal to the same purport is with merit.

4. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)